Trump in a tailspin

[c_hawkbob]

First day of institutional torture was today. The next two weeks will be all range of motion with the technician doing all the work and me acting like it doesn't hurt ... Actually it wasn't that bad, not near as bad as the same portion of my microfracture knee surgery a couple decades ago. Just glad to be finally getting on with it!

[RiverDog]

First day of institutional torture was today. The next two weeks will be all range of motion with the technician doing all the work and me acting like it doesn't hurt ... Actually it wasn't that bad, not near as bad as the same portion of my microfracture knee surgery a couple decades ago. Just glad to be finally getting on with it!

That's great to hear! I'm not sure how relative it is to your surgery, but I had rotator cuff repair surgery about 8 years ago and it turned out great. I wish I could say the same for my knee replacement surgery.

[RiverDog]

It looks like the Orange Baboon has been or will soon be indicted:

Former President Donald Trump, already under multiple criminal investigations for his coup attempt, has been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his role in a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.

The New York Times was the first to report on the still-sealed indictment.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-st ... f1523fa996

[c_hawkbob]

But wait, I thought there was no chance?

[RiverDog]

But wait, I thought there was no chance?

No chance of what? All I've ever said is that there's no chance he'll serve a day in jail, and I stand by that statement.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Indictment is one thing; conviction is another; then sentencing is another. If they can make something stick, more power to them.

[RiverDog]

Indictment is one thing; conviction is another; then sentencing is another. If they can make something stick, more power to them.

Spot on. Mack! It only takes a simple majority of the grand jury to get an indictment. It takes a unanimous 12 out of 12 to obtain a criminal conviction.

And even if they were to obtain a conviction in this case, the sentencing is almost certainly not going to involve jail time.

[Aseahawkfan]

After 6 plus years, there is an indictment for the most appropriate of crimes: paying off a pornstar. I'm still not holding my breath it will amount to much, but it's funny and appropriate.

[RiverDog]

After 6 plus years, there is an indictment for the most appropriate of crimes: paying off a pornstar. I'm still not holding my breath it will amount to much, but it's funny and appropriate.

Yeah, it's extremely appropriate, and the only thing funnier would have been if he had gotten the clap from her. I'll have to record this weekend's SNL.

This one is small potatoes compared to the other irons he has in the fire. But even if he's tried and convicted of all of them, it's not going to prevent him from running for and being elected POTUS again.

[RiverDog]

The more I think about this, the more I'm having mixed feelings. I intensely despise DJT, and anything that causes him to suffer or diminish his chances for another shot at the White House, I'm in favor of. I want to see him off the political scene for good. He's the worst thing to have happened to this country since 9/11.

But on the other hand, the prosecutor is obviously playing politics with this indictment. He's a Democratic party hack and is notorious for reducing criminal charges to misdemeanors. The NYPD has complained about him over the years, accusing him of being soft on crime. Yet in this one, he's done a flip, elevating a misdemeanor election violation charge to a criminal one. Although I want to see the Republicans give themselves an enema and purge themselves of that POS, they do have a point about a double standard being used by the prosecutor.

[Aseahawkfan]

The more I think about this, the more I'm having mixed feelings. I intensely despise DJT, and anything that causes him to suffer or diminish his chances for another shot at the White House, I'm in favor of. I want to see him off the political scene for good. He's the worst thing to have happened to this country since 9/11.

But on the other hand, the prosecutor is obviously playing politics with this indictment. He's a Democratic party hack and is notorious for reducing criminal charges to misdemeanors. The NYPD has complained about him over the years, accusing him of being soft on crime. Yet in this one, he's done a flip, elevating a misdemeanor election violation charge to a criminal one. Although I want to see the Republicans give themselves an enema and purge themselves of that POS, they do have a point about a double standard being used by the prosecutor.

You already know this is a political attack. The Clintons have been pushing this hard. Hilary set it up. She has tons of connections in New York as a former New York Senator. It's a heavy Democrat political attack on Trump that he opened himself up to. None of this changes how bad the Democrats are. They are using this as petty revenge against Trump. Tons of politicians have paid off women to keep quiet about affairs and such using illegal funds. No one prosecutes it unless behind the scenes they get the go ahead from other powerful party members. This guy and all the other investigations are funded by Democratic power and pushed by upper echelon Democratic Party members in positions of power. I think some Republican power players also signed off on it because of how stupid and problematic Donald is or we'd be seeing Democratic politicians getting embarrassed as well.

I think January 6 pulled a lot of Trump's Republican protection from him as no one can do good business in that kind of chaos. I don't mean the random manipulated Republican voter. I mean his real protection and upper echelon money and power. We already know Mitch McConnell hates him even if he doesn't publicly say so. Romney can't stand him. He pisssed off the Cheney's. Liz may have lost her election, but I can guarantee her and her father still have plenty of contacts in Washington D.C. There are plenty of rumors the show of resistance to the Trump indictment is nothing more than fake outrage and Republican acting when they really want the guy gone. Letting the Democrats take him out suits them just fine as they can use it to fuel their next candidate.

[RiverDog]

The more I think about this, the more I'm having mixed feelings. I intensely despise DJT, and anything that causes him to suffer or diminish his chances for another shot at the White House, I'm in favor of. I want to see him off the political scene for good. He's the worst thing to have happened to this country since 9/11.

But on the other hand, the prosecutor is obviously playing politics with this indictment. He's a Democratic party hack and is notorious for reducing criminal charges to misdemeanors. The NYPD has complained about him over the years, accusing him of being soft on crime. Yet in this one, he's done a flip, elevating a misdemeanor election violation charge to a criminal one. Although I want to see the Republicans give themselves an enema and purge themselves of that POS, they do have a point about a double standard being used by the prosecutor.

You already know this is a political attack. The Clintons have been pushing this hard. Hilary set it up. She has tons of connections in New York as a former New York Senator. It's a heavy Democrat political attack on Trump that he opened himself up to. None of this changes how bad the Democrats are. They are using this as petty revenge against Trump. Tons of politicians have paid off women to keep quiet about affairs and such using illegal funds. No one prosecutes it unless behind the scenes they get the go ahead from other powerful party members. This guy and all the other investigations are funded by Democratic power and pushed by upper echelon Democratic Party members in positions of power. I think some Republican power players also signed off on it because of how stupid and problematic Donald is or we'd be seeing Democratic politicians getting embarrassed as well.

I think January 6 pulled a lot of Trump's Republican protection from him as no one can do good business in that kind of chaos. I don't mean the random manipulated Republican voter. I mean his real protection and upper echelon money and power. We already know Mitch McConnell hates him even if he doesn't publicly say so. Romney can't stand him. He pisssed off the Cheney's. Liz may have lost her election, but I can guarantee her and her father still have plenty of contacts in Washington D.C. There are plenty of rumors the show of resistance to the Trump indictment is nothing more than fake outrage and Republican acting when they really want the guy gone. Letting the Democrats take him out suits them just fine as they can use it to fuel their next candidate.

There's a lot of ways to look at this. Yes, it's a highly politicalized attack. Any other person would not have had these charges elevated to a criminal status. The Democrats are truly applying a double standard.

But on the other hand, the consequences of Trump's illegal hush money were such, an election to the most powerful position in the world, wouldn't have happened without the commission of this crime, that it justifies handling this case differently than all others.

And as far as the Clintons go, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But whatever they did is not an excuse for anyone to overlook what Trump has done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's a lot of ways to look at this. Yes, it's a highly politicalized attack. Any other person would not have had these charges elevated to a criminal status. The Democrats are truly applying a double standard.

But on the other hand, the consequences of Trump's illegal hush money were such, an election to the most powerful position in the world, wouldn't have happened without the commission of this crime, that it justifies handling this case differently than all others.

And as far as the Clintons go, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But whatever they did is not an excuse for anyone to overlook what Trump has done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not even sure why you see right and wrong in American politics. There is only what each one does to manipulate the voters selling all kinds of trash ideas to each set of voters.

Did you see Bernie Sanders with Howard Schultz? Basically Schultz clearly stated that he earned his way to billionaire status, has great benefits for Starbucks workers, has earned the American dream starting from nothing, but Bernie tried to dismiss him to keep selling his socialist drivel. I have talked to so many Democrats who know next to nothing about economics or a capitalist system or even a socialist system that read some article and buy everything in it being sold like lemmings. They do this while claiming they're the "educated" party as though that means anything worthwhile.

What does that mean?

It means the narrative is controlled from the beginning. It's being manipulated and used to forward whatever agenda is being served. The fact is Trump isn't being prosecuted because of "right and wrong" or we would have plenty of presidents prosecuted before. Trump is being prosecuted because he mishandled power so badly that he has lost his protection. They've known about this hush money for six plus years. But he had strong Republican protection back then behind the scenes. Back then men like Cheney and the Kochs and Kushner with their money and connections had his back. But he lost the election and crapped the bed afterwards allowing January 6th to occur. Say what you want about what the Republicans say in public, but I guarantee all his power broker Republicans that backed him last time were looking going, "I can't make money in a Civil War asshat. You should have never let that happen."

Now he's reaping the pain when a man thinks he's above the power in a Washington D.C. and has pissed off his own party's power players. Even McConnell for all his public hypocrisy and playing the "Appease the Trumpers" in public is behind the scenes not going to protect Trump unless he's told to do so and is happy to see the idiot fall and fall hard. Trump has lost favor with the most important people in his party because he thought they couldn't touch him and all he needed was Trump followers to sustain himself. He's finding out the hard way that even power players in his own party want nothing whatsoever to do with January 6th type of events. Bad for business for everyone.

[Hawktawk]

Havent seen the big riots yet in support of the porn star president. Maybe hearing about all those big prison sentences from Jan 6 might calm them down.
Lets see Trumps in NY a day early. If theres riots he should be jailed.

[RiverDog]

Havent seen the big riots yet in support of the porn star president. Maybe hearing about all those big prison sentences from Jan 6 might calm them down.
Lets see Trumps in NY a day early. If theres riots he should be jailed.

There's not going to be any riots, at least not on the scale of Jan. 6th (of course, I'm one that said they wouldn't happen then, so what do I know?).

I've heard some of the hardcore MAGA supporters say that Trump turned his back on them after Jan. 6th. But the lack of an aggressive reaction to his indictment isn't a strong indicator of his support. He still holds a 2-1 margin over his nearest R opponent, a lead that increased after the indictment. Dems are dancing in the streets over the indictment, but the reality is that it has given the far right a strong rallying cry, and if Trump gets the nomination and Biden's popularity remains in the toilet where it's been for going on two years, he's going to be a big threat to return to the White House. The goal isn't to tar and feather him, it's to keep him out of the White House.

[c_hawkbob]

From what I'm reading there are protesters and counter-protesters assembled outside the courthouse, but so far they've been outnumbered by media members.

[I-5]

Not surprised at the lack of protestors. He stopped winning a pretty long time ago; no one likes the smell of a loser.

I don't expect Trump to serve a day in jail either, but what are the chances he can escape conviction of every felony count (32 I've heard)?

[Stream Hawk]

It’s now 34 counts. Odds are pretty stacked against him at this point. I don’t expect him to spend much (or any) time in prison, but my biggest fear is him winning again. However, that would be shocking if this rallies folks. As Kasich said something to the effect of “there is no way Trump will have the support from of all independent voters”.
https://twitter.com/occupydemocrats/sta ... pMkhpLC7ng

[RiverDog]

It’s now 34 counts. Odds are pretty stacked against him at this point. I don’t expect him to spend much (or any) time in prison, but my biggest fear is him winning again. However, that would be shocking if this rallies folks. As Kasich said something to the effect of “there is no way Trump will have the support from of all independent voters”.
https://twitter.com/occupydemocrats/sta ... pMkhpLC7ng

The only way Trump spends a minute in jail over this indictment is if he starts running his mouth and the judge slaps a gag order on him that he subsequently violates.

The problem is that he's actually gained popularity amongst Republicans since the indictment, stretching his lead out over DeSantis, now over 20 points. It's a blatantly political act, especially given the Democratic soft on crime prosecutor who's well known for reducing charges on much more serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, yet in this one he elevates it from a misdemeanor to a felony, barely sliding under the statute of limitations. If it were any other person, no way that these charges see the light of day.

As Stream Hawk says, the big fear is Trump gaining the nomination then facing a very weak Sleepy Joe in 2024. With the Saudis announcing a production cut of crude and the vacation season coming, you can expect gas prices to spike again this summer, and with it, our moronic HUA public, like they always do with whoever is in the White House at the time, will link Biden with their having to pay more for gas, so don't expect Biden's popularity to increase any.

[RiverDog]

Mitt Romney, one of the few Republicans that voted to impeach Trump, doesn't buy the stolen election lie, and has separated himself from the MAGA crowd, has said some interesting things regarding Trump's indictment:

I believe President Trump's character and conduct make him unfit for office. Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda. No one is above the law, not even former presidents, but everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The prosecutor's overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public's faith in our justice system.

"The charges and evidence will be duly considered and the outcome decided by a jury with an obligation to fulfill its responsibility with the utmost care and impartiality. The American voters will ultimately render their own judgment on the former President's political future.

"Finally, it is also incumbent on all elected leaders to discourage violence and anger in response to this situation."

https://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-call ... 35017.html

He hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. As much as we all dislike Trump, he still deserves treatment equal to that of any other citizen, and there's no way a prosecutor, especially this prosecutor with a history of reducing felony charges to misdemeanors, would have brought these charges before a jury if it were anyone besides Trump.

Besides, these charges of falsifying business records are petty. The real charges with meat on them are the ones in Georgia over election interference and those resulting from the Jan. 6th riot.

[NorthHawk]

If it were you or any other American had done what Trump is accused of, you would have been prosecuted too.
This speaks to a number of things including demonstrating everyone is equal before the law, special privilege for rich and powerful people, and sure, political persuasion.
But the political side pales in comparison to the rule of law and how fairly justice is meted out. We all live in a society where we are at risk of being accused of doing something illegal. Those with vast wealth have a distinct advantage over those with few means, but everyone in our society gets the chance to prove innocence. Including Trump.

So should people of great power and wealth never be accused of something? That's where it's heading for the MAGA crowd if they agree with that person and the politics.
It's interesting that a large number of Republicans are falling in step with the far edge and condemning this act without knowing any of the facts or seeing any evidence. That's dangerous blind loyalty and has no place in a free democracy.
It's also interesting that McConnell hasn't said anything and has just let Trump talk his way into more trouble. There are a few others that are like McConnell who also haven't commented. It's a political move, I'm sure but there might be some hope yet for them.

[c_hawkbob]

If it were you or any other American had done what Trump is accused of, you would have been prosecuted too.

Years ago. Politics definitely played a hand in this case; they delayed and obfuscated it. Any one of us would have faced a much more timely prosecution.

[RiverDog]

If it were you or any other American had done what Trump is accused of, you would have been prosecuted too.

Maybe. But I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have been elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony, not on a first-time offense and certainly not by this prosecutor. Here's just one example:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has no problem inflating dubious misdemeanor charges against President Donald Trump into felonies, yet when it comes to real-life career criminals, even violent ones, he does the opposite — reducing felonies to mere misdemeanors.

That’s what he did last week for Rodney Johnson, 53, who has nearly 90 collars (yes, 90!) on his rap sheet going back to the ’80s.

The charges include domestic violence after he allegedly threatened to kill his girlfriend, robbery with intent to cause physical injury, extensive narcotics sales and more. He’s done time in state prison for robbery and grand larceny and blown off a court-ordered intervention program three times in connection to a felony robbery case.

None of that mattered to Bragg & Co.

When cops hauled in Johnson on third-degree robbery charges over thefts at two Manhattan pharmacies — including one where he’s said to have threatened workers with pepper spray — the DA’s office dropped all charges to misdemeanor menacing and petty larceny.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/04/tough-on- ... c-menaces/

And then there's this:

According to (president of the Crime Research Center John) Lott's group, the number of felony cases Bragg declined to prosecute rose 35 percent in 2022 compared to 2019, while the drop in misdemeanor prosecutions resulting in jail sentences fell by 78 percent. "What makes this all the more remarkable is that this huge drop occurred while the number of offenses was increasing," said Lott.

https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-braggs-s ... mp-1789040

It's clear that this case would never have been elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony had the defendant been anyone else other than Trump, at least not by this prosecutor.

[NorthHawk]

Don’t they look at a pattern of crimes and adjust the charges accordingly? After all he’s got something like 34 accusations against him. So if there are multiple allegations of a similar nature, is that even considered?

[RiverDog]

Don’t they look at a pattern of crimes and adjust the charges accordingly? After all he’s got something like 34 accusations against him. So if there are multiple allegations of a similar nature, is that even considered?

All 34 of the counts against Trump are from the same violation, falsifying records in the "catch and kill" operation, ie the Stormy Daniels hush money payments made in 2016:

Prosecutors led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to a "catch-and-kill" scheme to suppress negative news stories about him ahead of the 2016 election.

I'm no lawyer, but common sense tells us that if they all come from the same event, it would be considered a first time charge. There is no previous court record of any other violations.

[c_hawkbob]

No they're not. Many separate incidents involving three separate payments; to two women to suppress information about extramarital sexual encounters they said they had with years earlier, and one to a onetime Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about a child he alleged Trump had out of of wedlock

[RiverDog]

No they're not. Many separate incidents involving three separate payments; to two women to suppress information about extramarital sexual encounters they said they had with years earlier, and one to a onetime Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about a child he alleged Trump had out of of wedlock

The point of our recent discussion is that Trump, if convicted of these charges, would be considered a first time offender:

Levin, a criminal defense attorney and former state prosecutor, says that while these felony charges are punishable by jail time, he doubts Trump would be sent to prison.

Bernstein also thinks it’s doubtful, especially considering Trump would be a first-time offender.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-has-pleade ... 40014.html

[c_hawkbob]

That's not the point I commented on, I commented on your contention that all of this stemmed from a single incident. Besides that speaks more to appropriate final disposition of the case than it's genesis.

[RiverDog]

That's not the point I commented on, I commented on your contention that all of this stemmed from a single incident. Besides that speaks more to appropriate final disposition of the case than it's genesis.

There may have been several incidents, but the falsification of records associated with them were all done during the same period of time (prior to the 2016 election) and all related to the "catch and kill" scheme that I was referring to.

Bottom line is that Trump is considered a first-time offender with no criminal record and that if it were anyone else, this prosecutor, a Democrat, would not be elevating these charges to felonies. The charges are politically motivated, and Republicans are in the right by charactering it as a weaponization of the judicial system.

[c_hawkbob]

I'm sorry but those are purely your assumptions and I disagree. Dems can be as holier than thou with there own every bit as much. Look what they did to Al Franken for a hint of a whisper of what Trump has bellowed from the mountaintop.

[RiverDog]

I'm sorry but those are purely your assumptions and I disagree. Dems can be as holier than thou with there own every bit as much. Look what they did to Al Franken for a hint of a whisper of what Trump has bellowed from the mountaintop.

They are assumptions but they are based on some very compelling evidence. Just take a look at that guy's track record of reducing felonies to misdemeanors and his own statements about not even prosecuting some crimes:

Manhattan’s new DA (Bragg) has ordered his prosecutors to stop seeking prison sentences for hordes of criminals and to downgrade felony charges in cases including armed robberies and drug dealing, according to a set of progressive policies made public Tuesday.

In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” except with homicides and a handful of other cases, including domestic violence felonies, some sex crimes and public corruption.

“This rule may be excepted only in extraordinary circumstances based on a holistic analysis of the facts, criminal history, victim’s input (particularly in cases of violence or trauma), and any other information available,” the memo reads.

In an accompanying “Day One” letter to his staff, Bragg claimed, “These policy changes not only will, in and of themselves, make us safer; they also will free up prosecutorial resources to focus on violent crime.”

https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan ... ome-cases/

So he's going to focus on violent crime and not preoccupy his staff with petty stuff...like falsifying business records.

There is no reason to believe that Bragg would have elevated white collar crime of falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony if it had been some Tom, Dick, or Harry that was charged.

[c_hawkbob]

I am already aware of the conservative talking points, you needn't show them to me in print.

[RiverDog]

I am already aware of the conservative talking points, you needn't show them to me in print.

So that's what you call Bragg's own statement, conservative talking points? You're in the vast minority, my friend. A CNN poll found that 3 out of 4 Americans felt that politics played a role in the indictment:

Most Americans (76%) believe politics played at least some role in the decision to indict Trump, who is both a former president and current candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. About half (52%) see it as having played “a major role” in the decision, while around a quarter say it played a minor role and 14% no role at all. Another 10% are unsure if politics was a factor in the grand jury’s vote.

Try taking off your DNC badge for a minute, read Bragg's public statements and examine his actions, then you tell me if there anything in them that would suggest that he would elevate a charge of falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony if the accused were John Smith or Jane Doe.

All this indictment is doing is strengthening Trump's hand. It gives credence to his claims of being the victim of a witch hunt and increases his chances of regaining the White House in 2024. It's increased is fund raising efforts and widened his lead over his Republican opponents. That's what we should be worried about: Keeping him out of the Oval Office, not tarring and feathering him for the history books.

[c_hawkbob]

First, if you believe that to be, or even contain, Braggs statement regarding the Trump indictment I believe we have discovered our political disconnect. Not only was that not Braggs statement but most of it was a staff memo prior to that indictment.

Second, if you read the relevant passage it specifically includes Trumps issue: In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” except with homicides and a handful of other cases, including domestic violence felonies, some sex crimes and public corruption.

As is usually the case, it wasn't the affair(s) but the coverup and the subsequent attempts to charge the payoff money as business and even campaign finance expenses that lift this to felony levels. Public corruption.

Besides, even if found guilty of all charges this case still will probably not end in your "carceral sentence". This ain't the case that'll land him behind bars, this is the least of the lot, it just happened to be first.

[RiverDog]

First, if you believe that to be, or even contain, Braggs statement regarding the Trump indictment I believe we have discovered our political disconnect. Not only was that not Braggs statement but most of it was a staff memo prior to that indictment.

So you are saying that the NY Post got this part wrong?

In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office....

If that wasn't Bragg's statement, who's was it?

Second, if you read the relevant passage it specifically includes Trumps issue: In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” except with homicides and a handful of other cases, including domestic violence felonies, some sex crimes and public corruption.

As is usually the case, it wasn't the affair(s) but the coverup and the subsequent attempts to charge the payoff money as business and even campaign finance expenses that lift this to felony levels. Public corruption.

Besides, even if found guilty of all charges this case still will probably not end in your "carceral sentence". This ain't the case that'll land him behind bars, this is the least of the lot, it just happened to be first.

What Trump is accused of doing is not corruption. Corruption is, for example, when a cop accepts $100 to overlook a DUI. That is not the case in this instance. It is perfectly legal to pay someone money in exchange for their pledge not to discuss an affair. It's called a non disclosure agreement. What Trump is accused of doing is falsifying business records so as not to have to report it as an expense under campaign finance laws. Not only that, but there are legitimate questions as to whether or not Trump knew that the alteration of business records was done and that they were illegal.

And I agree with your last paragraph, that it likely won't land him behind bars...unless the judge issues a gag order, and he continues to run his mouth and is hit with a contempt of court citation. That's why I said that it's foolish for the Dems to pursue this case as it plays into Trump's hands. Keep your powder dry and wait for the Georgia election interference and Jan. 6th trials. They would get more mileage out of this case if they agreed with the R's (oh, the horror!) and call this prosecution what it is: Politically motivated.

[c_hawkbob]

Again, you're confusing internal memos with statements to the press. And I don't much care for your narrow interpretation of corruption. I'm completely OK with considering a public official expensing hush money payments to a porn star as business or campaign expenses corruption.

[RiverDog]

Again, you're confusing internal memos with statements to the press. And I don't much care for your narrow interpretation of corruption. I'm completely OK with considering a public official expensing hush money payments to a porn star as business or campaign expenses corruption.

You have a very broad definition of corruption. Mine is limited to some form of bribery, extortion, kickbacks, or some other illegal exchanging of money or services, abuse of power or authority (Trump had neither in 2016) for personal gain, none of which are present in this case. This particular crime is an accounting issue, not one where he was trying to illegally use his money to influence behavior (NDA's are perfectly legal in most instances).

In any event, you harbor a minority opinion if you think these charges aren't politically motivated and that this prosecutor would have elevated them to a felony had the accused been one of us common folk.

If you're completely OK with this action, then I guess you're completely OK with Trump raising millions in campaign funds and widening his lead over his Republican opponents for the nomination due to this indictment. You must be damn confident that Sleepy Joe can beat him in 2024. I hope you're right.

[c_hawkbob]

If you're completely OK with this action, then I guess you're completely OK with Trump raising millions in campaign funds and widening his lead over his Republican opponents for the nomination due to this indictment. You must be damn confident that Sleepy Joe can beat him in 2024. I hope you're right.

Asinine logic. There is no' A must equal B' in those two completely unassociated scenarios. Trump is a snake oil salesman and carnival barker and his minions are mindless. He's going to squeeze every penny possible from them just like a televangelist will squeeze every possible penny from confused old people that think they're buying there stairway to heaven. Only difference is I have a moderately greater degree of sympathy for the latter. None of that has a thing to do with the correct definition of corruption.

Your final conclusion, despite the fallaciousness of it's logic route is correct. I don't think Trump will ever be a viable candidate again.

[RiverDog]

Your final conclusion, despite the fallaciousness of it's logic route is correct. I don't think Trump will ever be a viable candidate again.

I sincerely hope you're right. But you were about as wrong as one could be in 2016 when you said that Trump was the best Democratic candidate the Republicans had ever nominated. For what it's worth, I was wrong, too. But I don't want to take any chances. I'm following the principle of fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm for whatever hurts Trump's chances of re-taking the White House, and this without argument not helping in that regard.

[RiverDog]

To dovetail on my previous comment, here's the latest polling of a hypothetical matchup between Trump and Biden:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... 7383.html#!

Trump is leading Biden by 1.8%. And that doesn't speak to the fact that the polls tend to underestimate Trump, that there seems to be a lot of closet Trump supporters that aren't reflected in the polling. The polls had him doing worse in both 2016 and 2020.

There's also a poll that shows that only 1/3 of Americans feel that Biden deserves re-election. Sleepy Joe's popularity is still in the toilet. CNN has his job approval at 40%, with a 55% disapproval rating. That almost always spells bad news for the incumbent as it did with Trump in 2020.